Government Reform

Within the last year, the approval rating for congress has dipped below 10%, and polls have shown that ~89% of Americans distrust the government. I think most of us can agree that the political system we have in the United States is not ideal. My knowledge of government is limited to what I learned in AP Gov in high school (I got a C so I didn't learn much haha), but surely there are minds here better than mine on the topic that could discuss what they think the biggest issues with the structure/functioning of the government and how that could be fixed. I may be pessimistic in my view, but I don't see widespread massive changes happening within the government. I still think the ideas warrant discussion regardless of their feasibility.

One thought I had was spurred by a comment by The Optomist in the fiscal cliff thread about freezing the accounts of congress members until a plan was agreed upon. What would the drawbacks of an incentive based salary for politicians be? The incentives would be based on polling at the end of each year as well as meeting certain benchmarks (unemployment level, inflation). For the polling, subsets of the population would be created based on a number of factors such as age, occupation, income level, location, etc. Satisfying a subset of people would yield a monetary incentive. The politicians salaries would be entirely incentive based and they would then have to work to satisfy a broad range of people which would, in theory, reduce the amount of time spent bickering between the parties (if parties even continue to exist..) because time wasted = less time to satisfy more subsets.

That's just one theoretical change (very unlikely to ever happen but I still thought it was an interesting thought).. What are some of your thoughts on possible changes?

Start with the inception... do away with a two party system and more regulation on donations. The cream can never rise to the top in a two party system and everything that's done in the primary, especially on the Republican side, is exagerrated alignment with the beliefs of the big contributors, rather than an expression of what the candidate really believes in. This is where "flip flopping" comes from. It just breeds dishonesty.

- it's become a career rather than a part-time endeavor
- we have mostly attorneys running things... what are attorneys good at besides arguing? we need more businessmen in there to make sound financial decisions

I agree that more radical reforms are necessary. Do away with the two-party system. But I think we have advanced to the point where we should move towards a more democratic form of government. These fiscal cliff discussions should be held before the public, and ultimately we should have referendums on any major tax or entitlement measure. Let the People voluntarily raise taxes, or let them voluntarily cut what entitlements they deem fit; rather than bought off politicians.

Furthermore, the system should enact parliamentary rule changes to allow for greater public debate. Let the Speaker of the House and Minority leaders debate continuously, yielding time only to members who have something substantive to offer in debate. Speeches should be reserved for days allotted for that purpose by the Speaker. The presiding officers of both Houses should be nonpartisan appointed officials selected to serve on a panel and enforce parliamentary procedures, particularly forcing members to ask questions or present arguments rather than long and drawn out speeches. We should also have filibuster reform, and require members to actually filibuster (stand there and talk indefinitely, without break) publicly in order to stop legislative action.

We also need to do away with money in politics. An amendment to the Constitution making all elections virtually entirely publicly funded, with donations and contributions limited to political primaries, drastically reducing the total amount allowed for donation, offering 3:1 government matching funds, and fixing the price of political TV/radio advertisements through the FCC (using the tax code).

We should also institute term limits in Congress and the Supreme Court. I would also say we should create a private and separate legal institute, governed by the brightest legal minds to form a meritocracy of sorts that could recommend potential Supreme Court nominees, rather than Presidents using the opportunity for political advantage. Bush and Obama's picks have all been highly partisan selections that brought no balance to the Court. We should have impartial jurists on the Court like Kennedy (even though I disagree with his worldview), not the ideologues that dominate it presently.

89% of Americans distrust the gov't...yet they vote for a party that wants to make the gov't bigger

Click to expand...

Not that confusing when you consider the GOP platform is a joke, and their policies are rooted in fear, xenophobia, homophobia, and racism. They might win more votes if they didn't castigate 53% of the American electorate, and only represent 2% of American's economic interests.

When did the Republican Party become the union-busting, Big Brother loving, in your bedroom, neoconservative, pseudo-Christian, anti-safety net, poverty hating party?

The reason I'm a Democrat? Because neither I, nor my views, are welcome in the GOP. Too small a tent...

Why are congressmen pretty much passing away from old age while still in office? They need term limits.

Click to expand...

I do agree with this.

I'm not old yet, so I'm not too sure how the mind works when you are up there, but I will say this:

I'm pretty sure you have a sharper view of things and are generally more intelligent when you are 45-65. When you start pushing eighty or so... I just can't see people being as sharp and making the correct decision.

I'm not old yet, so I'm not too sure how the mind works when you are up there, but I will say this:

I'm pretty sure you have a sharper view of things and are generally more intelligent when you are 45-65. When you start pushing eighty or so... I just can't see people being as sharp and making the correct decision.

I agree that more radical reforms are necessary. Do away with the two-party system. But I think we have advanced to the point where we should move towards a more democratic form of government. These fiscal cliff discussions should be held before the public, and ultimately we should have referendums on any major tax or entitlement measure. Let the People voluntarily raise taxes, or let them voluntarily cut what entitlements they deem fit; rather than bought off politicians.

Furthermore, the system should enact parliamentary rule changes to allow for greater public debate. Let the Speaker of the House and Minority leaders debate continuously, yielding time only to members who have something substantive to offer in debate. Speeches should be reserved for days allotted for that purpose by the Speaker. The presiding officers of both Houses should be nonpartisan appointed officials selected to serve on a panel and enforce parliamentary procedures, particularly forcing members to ask questions or present arguments rather than long and drawn out speeches. We should also have filibuster reform, and require members to actually filibuster (stand there and talk indefinitely, without break) publicly in order to stop legislative action.

We also need to do away with money in politics. An amendment to the Constitution making all elections virtually entirely publicly funded, with donations and contributions limited to political primaries, drastically reducing the total amount allowed for donation, offering 3:1 government matching funds, and fixing the price of political TV/radio advertisements through the FCC (using the tax code).

We should also institute term limits in Congress and the Supreme Court. I would also say we should create a private and separate legal institute, governed by the brightest legal minds to form a meritocracy of sorts that could recommend potential Supreme Court nominees, rather than Presidents using the opportunity for political advantage. Bush and Obama's picks have all been highly partisan selections that brought no balance to the Court. We should have impartial jurists on the Court like Kennedy (even though I disagree with his worldview), not the ideologues that dominate it presently.

I'm not old yet, so I'm not too sure how the mind works when you are up there, but I will say this:

I'm pretty sure you have a sharper view of things and are generally more intelligent when you are 45-65. When you start pushing eighty or so... I just can't see people being as sharp and making the correct decision.

Click to expand...

If the earth is viable long enough and/or if humans can sustain anywhere else, the possibilities are really limitless. Evolution does not slow down anywhere in the universe.

My point, training the mind - adaptation - will probably allow people to continue to live longer and longer, be sharper and sharper, and think better and better as they age.

I truly believe the mind never stops growing. Yes, there are diseases and such, but this is natural selection and/or evil. Life goes on - far beyond earth.